Lords Sitting of 17 December 1906

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Falkirk and District Tramways (Extensions) Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

EDINBURGH SUBURBAN ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, the Lord Chairman, who is interested in this Bill, is unable to be present until later in the evening, and, at his request, I beg leave to have the Bill considered at the close of to-day's business.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I would make an appeal to the noble Lord to postpone the Bill until to-morrow. It only came up to your Lordships' House on Friday, and no opportunity has been given under the Standing Orders to put down Amendments. I would ask the noble Lord, in the circumstances, to postpone the Bill until to-morrow in order to enable us to give notice of Amendments.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of Ripon): I think the request of my noble friend, is a reasonable one. The Bill cannot be taken in the absence of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, because, of course, his opinion upon the subject would be a very valuable one. If the noble Lord objects to the Bill being taken later to-night my noble friend in charge of it will be willing to put it off till to-morrow.
Third Reading put off till tomorrow.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition against; of inhabitants of parish of Hampstead; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE.
  Annual Statement of the Trade of United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions, 1905. Supplement to Volumes I and II Abstract and detailed tables showing countries of consignment of imports and countries of ultimate destination of exports, with a prefatory memorandum.
  Sixty-eighth Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Marriages, and Deaths in England and Wales (1905).
  "OPTIONS" AND "FUTURES" IN FOODSTUFFS (LEGISLATION).
  Reports from the Canadian Government and His Majesty's representatives abroad on legislative measures respecting gambling in "option" and "future" contracts as regards food-stuffs (in continuation of [Cd. 1756.] of 1904).
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to inquire into and report upon the subject of small holdings in Great Britain, with minutes appointing the Committee; Minutes of evidence, with appendices and index.

  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS, 1906.
  Vol. XLI, Part I. Average and live stock returns of Great Britain, with summaries for the United Kingdom.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LEEWARD ISLANDS.
  Additional regulation relative to the uniform worn by prison officers; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Fourth Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered to-morrow. (No. 249.)

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Order of the day for the consideration of the Commons' reason for disagreeing with the Lords' Amendments read.
  Moved, "That the Commons' reason for disagreeing with the Lords Amendments be now considered."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, before your Lordships proceed to consider the Motion which has just been made I think it may be desirable that I should offer a few observations in regard to the peculiar position in which we find ourselves in consequence of the message which is on the Table. That message is of an entirely unprecedented character. I doubt whether the most diligent search of our Parliamentary records would reveal the existence of any communication made by one House of Parliament to the other bearing the slightest resemblance to this most momentous and extraordinary communication.
  My Lords, we can scarcely weigh the full significance of that message without recurring to the circumstances in which the Education Bill passed through this House and went to the other House of Parliament. I have had a somewhat lengthened experience of the House of Lords, and I can remember no measure which has attracted so much close and earnest attention as this measure has attracted. I never remember so large an attendance of your Lordships. The discussion was the more remarkable on account of the number of Members of this House who took part in it, and who took part in it, having a right to express their opinion, I might almost say, as experts with regard to the questions of local administration and of education.
  The discussion, which lasted, I think, sixteen nights in Committee, besides two nights on Report, was certainly not one of the tone of which anyone could possibly complain. It was thoroughgoing and in all respects temperate and reasonable. No one can say that this House arrived with headlong haste at its decision upon the measure. Your Lordships will remember that, in more than one
  916
  case, Amendments which met with a very large amount of support from various parts of the House and from this Bench were not pressed to a division because we had reason to suppose that they went somewhat beyond what the more moderate body of opinion of your Lordships would have been disposed to approve. Again, on the Report stage at least two Amendments of first-rate importance were removed from the Bill because your Lordships desired that our Amendments should not be pushed too far. All the Amendments that were in the Bill when it left this House were discussed deliberately and at full length, and in a manner which I venture to think was in marked contrast to the discussion elsewhere, where strong measures were taken to limit and curtail the progress of discussion.
  Well, my Lords, our Amendments went to the House of Commons, and how were they received? We receive in return for them the message of half-a-dozen lines which lies upon the Table. I hope I do not do an injustice to those who framed it when I say that to the ordinary reader it appears to be curt in its language and almost contemptuous in its tone. That message is all that we have before us. Now what can we extract from it? We are told that our Amendments taken as a whole are inconsistent with the character and destructive of the principle of the Bill. We are not told the points on which these Amendments are opposed to the principle of the Bill. No guidance is given to us in ascertaining where it is that we have traversed the limits within which His Majesty's Ministers desired to confine our suggestions. We certainly shall not be told that the Amendments inserted by the noble Earl opposite were inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, and yet I am assured by someone who has taken the pains to measure the total volume of the Amendments put in by this House that out of about 100 Amendments fifty-two were inserted by noble Lords opposite and only forty-eight on this side of the House. I presume we may claim for the fifty-two Amendments inserted by noble Lords opposite that they were of that character which has been described as "good as gold," and that we are not likely to hear

  917
  any proposal to remove those from the Bill.
  When noble Lords opposite speak to us about the principle of the Bill they generally give us to understand that the main principle of the Bill is that we should uphold public control over public elementary schools. We have heard lately that our local education authorities have become infected by a lofty ambition, and that it is their great desire to be masters in their own house. Now, I ask your Lordships where are the points at which we have really denied to these local authorities the right of acting as masters in their own house. So far as secular instruction is concerned that mastery remains complete in spite of your Lordships' Amendments. The squire and the parson have been dethroned, and on the day on which this Bill becomes law, so far as secular instruction is concerned, every voluntary school will be unreservedly under the control of the local authorities. So far as religious instruction is concerned, we have claimed and we continue to claim, that the control of the local authorities shall be tempered by some regard to the wishes of the parents; and we have further contended that, so far as it is possible without detriment to the efficiency of the schools, there should be an attempt to safeguard the rights of minorities. Both those principles were already admitted to some extent in the Bill of His Majesty's Government, and if we have gone further than they have, we are, at any rate, surely not open to the complaint that in that respect we have departed from the principle of the Bill.
  It is remarkable that within the last few days we have been told that the most conspicuous invasion of public control is to be found in the Amendment which your Lordships inserted in the first clause. We have been told that the effect of that Amendment is to open all the council schools of the country to facilities. My Lords, there never was a more extraordinary misconception. The Amendment, far from having that effect, merely stipulates that in every one of these schools the school hours shall be so arranged that religious instruction should not at the very outset be excluded by want of time. That is all. There is no
  918
  attempt to introduce facilities, no denial of popular control.
  May I be allowed to remark that this confidence which His Majesty's Ministers place so implicitly in the local education authorities seems to be exercised by them in a somewhat fitful and intermittent manner? They attach the greatest importance to it, but only, if I may say so, when it suits their book. When it suits our boot the tale is quite different. Let me mention two instances. My noble friend behind me has been taken to task for the Amendment which he inserted in the third clause; but, after all, what that Amendment does is merely to give the local authority a dispensing power which the local authority can exercise or not as it pleases. That is the intention of the Amendment; if it can be better carried out in different language we are quite ready to consider any proposals that may be made to us. Again there is an Amendment, which I had the honour of recommending to the House, and which has been made the subject of similar criticism. When we came to consider the Bill on Report we found it was so drafted that the absence of alternative accommodation for half a dozen children, or even for one child, was sufficient to prevent extended facilities being granted to a school in all other respects qualified to obtain such facilities. What did we do? We merely proposed that the local authority should be given a dispensing power which would enable them in certain special cases to relax the hard conditions which the clause as it stood imposed upon them. I mention that because I wish to show that in both those cases the basis on which we were proceeding was a desire to make the local authority master in its own house.
  What are the reasons for which we are given to understand, not in this message but in the statements that have been made outside the House, that it was necessary to reject the Lords' Amendments in globo?I have considered with all the attention that I could give them the reasons which have been suggested. I am bound to say that they seem to me to be obstacles of a kind which seem insurmountable only to those who have no great desire to surmount

  919
  them. We have heard it said that if the Lords' Amendments had been discussed seriatim something like eighty questions would have had to be separately disposed of. I noticed that a few hours later the eighty questions fell to forty, which I think shows that the quotation was a somewhat vague one. But, my Lords, I think the best answer to the statement that it was physically impossible to deal with our Amendments elsewhere is to be found in the fact which is a matter of common knowledge, that on Thursday last week an arrangement had been come to by the gentlemen who manage the business of the House for both sides and I presume may be considered experts upon the subject of the disposal of Parliamentary time, under which it had actually been decided that our Amendments should be taken seriatim and that four days should be set apart for the purpose. We can only conjecture as to the reasons which led to the abandonment of that plan. What actually happened was that a debate took place, in the course of which various vague hints and various somewhat indefinite hopes were held out to us that some of our most material Amendments might yet find favour with His Majesty's Government. As to that I feel that we are confronted with a very serious dilemma. If it be indeed true that the concessions which His Majesty's Ministers have in their minds are material concessions, then I ask what becomes of the charge that the whole of the Lords' Amendments are subversive of the principle of the Bill, and what again becomes of another statement which was made by a colleague of the noble Earl opposite, that if our Amendments had been discussed seriatim in the House of Commons, the result would have been exactly the same, because they were all inadmissible? Then to turn to the other horn of the dilemma. If the concessions are to be only trivial concessions, how can noble Lords opposite expect to find us ready to come to terms with them upon the basis of such concessions?
  Well, my Lords, how are we to deal with this extraordinary and unprecedented message? The noble Earl opposite the other day at the close of an interesting
  920
  speech on this subject counselled us to exercise forbearance in dealing with these questions. The treatment of our Amendments in the House of Commons is not a very striking example of forbearance. I suppose we may say that even in this House there is a certain amount of human feeling, and I wonder what the noble Earl and his friends think that any body of Englishmen would say if they were treated in the manner in which we have been treated by His Majesty's Ministers. Docs he know of any body of his fellow-countrymen who would take such treatment as that, to use a familiar expression, "lying down"? I doubt it extremely.
  Now, I beg to be allowed to point out that this is not a question of good manners as between the two Houses or of the dignity or amour propre of your Lordships, either individually or collectively. The constitutional question which arises is a far more serious one than that. It is not too much to say that it involves the future usefulness of this House as part of the constitutional machinery of this kingdom. Your Lordships know, if I may say a word as to myself, that I am not inclined to take a pedantic view of these questions. The advice I ventured to give the House not many days ago as to the manner in which it should deal with the Trade Disputes Bill ought, I think, to prove that I am not one of those who are unable to see both sides of a question of this sort. But I ask your Lordships to consider with what feelings we can look forward to the future of the House of Lords if such treatment as this is to be entirely condoned by your Lordships. Is it not certain that if it be so condoned these tactics will be repeated as time goes on? Is it not certain that when the Government of the day finds that it has an inconvenient question to deal with in the other House, when it is called upon, perhaps, to recommend to supporters who are not entirely unanimous, proposals of a somewhat intricate and embarrassing character, resort will again be had to this simple expedient of ruling out the proposals of this House en bloc and sending them back as these proposals have been sent back to us with a brief intimation that they cannot be entertained?

  921
  It has been said, and I have no doubt that my noble friend will say it again to-night, that there was no intention of showing disrespect to this House. I am quite sure that the noble Earl opposite would not willingly lend himself to any course which would denote disrespect to this House; but I say that it requires an extraordinary amount of self-deception to imagine that such a course as that which has been adopted can be adopted without the appearance of grave disrespect to this House. The ability and tactfulness with which the noble Earl opposite has piloted this Bill through your Lordships' House mark him as one who in years to come cannot fail to take a most distinguished part in our councils; and I do venture to appeal to him to see to it that something is done to mitigate, at all events, the effect of the course which has been adopted by the House of Commons in regard to this Bill.
  We have, then, to ask ourselves what is the proper manner for this House to deal with the message from the Commons. In ordinary circumstances one answer and one answer only could be returned to that message, and that would be an announcement that your Lordships intended to insist upon your Amendments and require their retention in the Bill; I cannot conceal from myself that it may be necessary for us eventually to return that answer. But I humbly suggest to your Lordships that that answer should not be sent until it becomes clear that no other answer is possible. Among those who sit behind me are some who would, I dare say, not be very sorry if this Bill were to disappear and, so far as this session is concerned, to be heard of no more. I am afraid I do not entirely agree with those who cheered that statement. I am one of those who would give a great deal to see a truce to, if not a termination of, the bitter and regrettable struggle which has so long been going on in this country around this question. It is bad for education, it is bad for religion, and it is bad in its effect upon public life in this country.
  It is, of course, also true that the judgment arrived at within the last few days by this House sitting judicially adds to the reasons why we should desire
  922
  a termination of this controversy. Therefore, if any means can be found, not of extricating this House from the difficulty in which it is placed, but of extricating His Majesty's Government from the situation in which they find themselves, I would say let us respectfully examine any proposals to that effect. I do not intend to suggest for a moment that the colleagues of the noble Earl should appear at the bar of this House in white sheets in order to profess penitence for what they have done; but I do ask that His Majesty's Government should not only tell us here in this House, that they do not desire to treat us with disrespect, but to make good their words and to tell us, in language plainer than any hitherto used, what are the proposals which they make to us with the object of saving this Bill.
  The next move lies with them. I hope that will be understood. But let me add this observation that to my mind it would be idle to attempt to find such an exit from the impasse unless His Majesty's Ministers are prepared to offer us not one or two trivial sops, not one or two concessions on small points, but concessions which will effectually recognise the most material of the objects for which we have contended throughout these debates. If they will do this, if they will make us proposals of that kind, I for one should rejoice if it were found possible, on the basis of such proposals, either in this House or by private discussion outside this House, to arrive at a solution which might be acceptable to both sides. Those are the feelings I venture to entertain; and I do not think I can do better in order to focus the observations I have made than to embody them in a Motion which I will now lay before the House, and which I presume might be taken as an Amendment to the Motion which the noble Earl has made. I propose that your Lordships should agree to a Resolution running as follows—
  "That this House, first, records its protest against the innovation in constitutional procedure by which the Commons have rejected the whole of the Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill including those proposed by His Majesty's Ministers, without assigning in any case specific reasons for the rejection of those Amendments; and, secondly, that this House adjourns the consideration of the Commons'

  923
  Amendments to the Lords' Amendments in order to afford His Majesty's Government an opportunity of making a definite statement in this House as to the course which His Majesty's Government are prepared to recommend to the House of Commons in regard to each material Amendment in the Bill.''
  Your Lordships will observe that that Resolution contains two separate limbs. In the first place, your Lordships are invited to record on the journals of this House your protest against the manner in which you have been treated. We propose, in the second place, that the further consideration of the message be adjourned until the noble Earl opposite has had an opportunity of laying before us in full detail the proposals which he desires to offer. I can only express my sincere hope that the noble Earl will think fit to avail himself of the opportunity we place within his reach, if not at once, perhaps after fuller consideration. We have no desire to press him unduly or to add to his difficulties. On the contrary, we look to him to co-operate with us to the best of his ability in bringing about a satisfactory solution of a situation which must be full of difficulty for himself, and which is regarded with the greatest concern by noble Lords who sit near me. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out all the words after 'That' for the purpose of inserting the following Resolution, viz.—("this House (1) records its protest against the innovation in constitutional procedure by which the Commons have rejected the whole of the Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill, including those proposed by His Majesty's Ministers, without assigning, in any case, specific reasons for the rejection of those Amendments; and (2) adjourns the consideration of the Commons message in order to afford His Majesty's Government an opportunity of making a definite statement to the House as to the course which His Majesty's Government are prepared to recommend to the House of Commons with regard to each material Amendment to the Bill)."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of Crewe): My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that I rise to address the House on this occasion with a feeling of most unusual responsibility, and it is by no means
  924
  diminished by the appeal which the noble Marquess opposite made to myself personally, couched, as is usual with him, in such kindly terms towards myself. Now, my Lords, two distinct questions arise out of the original Motion and out of the Motion and speech of the noble Marquess. There is in the first place the question of the Bill, of its Amendments, and possible modifications of those Amendments. In the second place, there the constitutional question arising between the two Houses out of the manner in which your Lordships' Amendments have been received in another place. Let me deal first with the constitutional question.
  The noble Marquess has dealt with this constitutional issue in a speech which was on the whole marked by moderation of tone, although he made a more free use of adjectives and adverbs than is customary with him; so it becomes my duty to represent to the House circumstances which may possibly induce some of your Lordships to modify the conclusions at which the noble Marquess arrived. In the first place let me point out that this constitutional grievance is not all on one side. I think it is true to say that each House considers that it has been somewhat cavalierly treated by the other in this matter of the Education Bill. I will endeavour to show why in my opinion it is that the House of Commons thinks so, no less than your Lordships do. In doing this it is necessary to refer to the general position which now obtains between the two Houses—the general state of affairs with regard to the rejection or modification by your Lordships of Bills upon which the House of Commons has expressed a definite opinion.
  The aspect of this question has somewhat changed of late years, and this fact is due in a large measure to the change both in the views and in the practice of the Conservative Party which holds sway over your Lordships' House. The old Tory Party professed to be the guardians of the ancient institutions of the country, and, in the main, I think, carried out its raison ďêtre by safeguarding them. It was also distinguished by a warm

  925
  interest in the humane or benevolent side of social reform. When the Tory Party thus existed, the House of Lords acted as a check upon the only people—the Radicals of the day—who proposed novel schemes of legislation, and in so doing it un doubtedly caused from time to time considerable annoyance to those who wanted to go fast; but the position was in the main accepted.
  Now an entirely different state of things obtains. Conservative or Unionist Governments make themselves responsible for schemes of legislation as large and as drastic as those which any Liberal Government ever proposed; and I cannot give a better instance of that fact than the last education measure, the Education Act of 1902. It was, if there ever was one, a Radical measure in its strictest sense—it effected a root and branch change in our system of national education. Whether that measure was demanded by the country will never be known; but your Lordships never asked the question whether it was so demanded or not. It passed through this House with very little amendment, and such amendment as there was was in the direction of further enforcing the views of the Party majority of that time. If there was to be a real reciprocity in this matter, that Bill of 1902 ought to have passed through the ordeal of a second Chamber containing a working Liberal majority of at least 150—such as that which your Lordships are able to bring to bear on the consideration of this Bill.
  People tolerably patient under coercion will rebel against unfairness; and it is this absolutely one-sided element, the essential unfairness of the state of things which I have described, which explains to a very great extent the impatience which is felt over the dealing by your Lordships with such a measure as this Education Bill which we have now once more before us. The contrast between 1902 and 1906 is almost dramatic, and it is by no means only frenzied partisans who take this view of the matter. I can call to witness the noble Lord opposite, Lord Newton, whose speeches always introduce so much ozone into the sometimes rather stagnant atmosphere of our debates. Lord Newton, in an article in the National Review for this month, says that your
  926
  Lordships' House would stand in a stronger position in this matter if you had ever amended one Conservative measure. I really believe that there are many of your Lordships who do not keep closely in touch with another place, and who do not realise the extreme soreness created in the minds even of moderate men by the very drastic treatment which this Education Bill has received.
  I am not going to repeat what I said on the occasion of the Third Reading of the Bill with regard to the nature of the changes which your Lordships have made or how far, in the judgment of those who sit on this side of the House, they entirely altered its character; but I confess I felt when the Bill was passing through this House that your Lordships seemed altogether to ignore the fact that the Bill had passed through another place with quite exceptional majorities. For all the consideration that the Bill received here, though I personally received so much, it might have been a measure originated by some private Peer to whom the subject was of personal interest. I must remind your Lordships that you can hardly mention a measure of the first class that has reached you backed by so tremendous a majority. The Irish Church Bill of 1869 offers a close parallel to this Bill in one respect, in that it was the primary measure brought in by a Government just returned by a great majority in the country. In 1869 the Irish Church Bill reached this House after a Third Reading majority of 133. By 1872 the majority of the Government, as happens to all Governments, had begun considerably to diminish. The Ballot Bill reached your Lordships by a majority of fifty-eight only; and yet both those measures were accepted in this substantial form by your Lordships' House. Now this Education Bill came before you with a majority of 192 on Third Reading, and in spite of that fact it has been altered in a great many most material respects.
  I pass to the treatment which your Lordships' Amendments have received in the House of Commons. I can only assure the noble Marquess and the House, on behalf of His Majesty's Government—and not only on behalf of those Members of it who sit in this House, but also of

  927
  those in the other House—that we had not the slightest intention of inflicting any slight upon this House or of derogating from, the proper claims of the House of Lords. Before it is assumed that any slight was intended or committed it rests upon noble Lords to show that there was really some other less abrupt course which could have been taken consistently with carrying out this task as a matter of business, and with keeping the Bill alive as we desired to do. When the noble Marquess says that these are tactics of which he fears a repetition, I can only assure him that there was no question of tactics in the matter. We simply took the course which we thought most reasonable in the circumstances.
  Now, my Lords, what courses were open to His Majesty's Government in another place? So far as I am able to judge from the precedents, it is clear that, considering the character and extent of the changes made in the Bill and the time of the year at which we have arrived all precedents would have made us immediately reject your Lordships' Amendment by moving that they be considered this day three or six months. When the Bribery at Elections Bill of 1834 was very materially altered by this House, and when it went back to the other House, Lord John Russell moved that the Lords' Amendments should be taken into consideration. But a private Member rose and suggested that, considering it was near the close of the session, and the sweeping character of the Amendments, they be considered that time three months, and that was accordingly done without further discussion. That was a course which we desired to avoid, because we wished to keep the Bill alive.
  Then there was the alternative of considering your Lordships' Amendments seriatim. It was understood that only four Parliamentary days could be set aside for that purpose; and it is perfectly true that at one time we were disposed to consider that that course might be taken. But the more we reflected on the matter, the more we became sure that it was impossible to arrive at a real discussion of those Amendments to get at the real heart of the matter and find what were the
  928
  vital points in that time. It would simply have meant, under the most rigid guillotine that could have been devised to deal with this enormous number of Amendments in this brief period, that there would have been a great deal of talk at large on special points which might have commended themselves to this or that shade of opinion, for in the other House as here there is a great diversity of opinion on this subject. We did not believe that it would have been possible within the time to arrive at a really valuable discussion of the vital points of the Bill. Your Lordships will understand that I speak without a tinge of disrespect for your Lordships' House, and that I am only desirous to justify the course taken by His Majesty's Government, when I say that the real reason was that the Bill, as your Lordships returned it, was not a systematic measure. It was amended on no distinct principle. It is perfectly true that the tone of the discussion in this House was everything that could be desired. But the measure was not returned in a sufficiently coherent form to make it possible for the Amendments at that stage to be taken singly.
  The noble Marquess declared that it had been asserted that the whole of the Lords' Amendments were subversive of the principles of the Bill. I do not recognise those words; but to say that the Amendments as a whole were subversive of the principles of the Bill—that is an admirable and accurate description of them. I confess that on this side of the House we did hope that your Lordships would have been prepared, when the Bill came here, with some definite scheme of Amendments. We hoped so all the more because the Bill did not come hurriedly up to this House, but the whole of the autumn recess was at the disposal of noble Lords for considering how they would like to amend the Bill. But as a matter of fact, when we came to the Committee stage—and I defy contradiction—Amendments were inserted singly, without much reference to what had gone before or to what was coming afterwards, and without any attempt to form a really coherent scheme.
  I remember that the most rev. Primate—whom we are all glad to see back again

  929
  —and Lord St. Aldwyn said that it was necessary to do this, because it was impossible otherwise not to run the risk of leaving out something which might ultimately be wanted to form part of a compromise Bill. On 10th December Mr. Balfour spoke of the right of every parent to decide what religion he would, like to be given to his children, and he said—
  "That is the basis on which the House of Lords has worked, as far as I can see, in all the modifications which they have introduced into this Bill."
  It is very natural that Mr. Balfour, who has many other duties, should not have followed entirely the course of discussion in your Lordships' House. But as a matter of fact the contrary is really the case. It is by no means the case that a very considerable part of the Amendments carried were moved, supported, or argued on the ground of the parents' wishes. Many of them were supported on various grounds, and on mixed grounds, but I think your Lordships must remember that a great many of them were advocated, not on the ground that they carried out the wishes of the parents—that is to say, of those who now send their children to school—but they were advocated on the ground of the amount of money that had been spent by pious people in the past in building denominational schools. Those are two entirely separate lines of argument, and you cannot combine them in a single Bill.
  What I call the parents' side, advocated by Lord Balfour of Burleigh in his Motion for general facilities, which carries out the idea of parents' rights to the fullest extent, was not accepted as an Amendment by your Lordships. It was only in the very last stage of the Bill that an Amendment intended to some extent to carry out that principle was inserted on the Motion of Lord Salisbury. But you cannot combine the question of the rights of parents with the question of the historical claims of denominational schools. In other words, if you have all round facilities you cannot have Clause 4, and, very largely because your Lordships' Amendments were bandied about from the one principle to the other without any real care to get them on a defined line in one or the other direction, I think the House of
  930
  Commons found it difficult to deal with your Lordships' Amendments seriatim.
  The fact is, that the House of Commons did not know what the real mind of your Lordships was in making these Amendments. I will go a great deal further than that. I will say that I myself have not the faintest idea what is the real mind of your Lordships in this matter. I have studied your Amendments as much as most poeple in or out of the House, but when I am asked to say what is the total sum of your Lordships' opinion—that is to say, what is the scheme which the whole House would send down as the proper way to amend this Bill—I confess that I am entirely at a loss; and if I, who had the honour of watching your Lordships amending the Bill all these days, am still, as I can most truthfully say, in doubt, I am not surprised that my friends in the House of Commons, who had not that advantage, should have been in a greater difficulty than I am.
  The conclusion I believe to which the House of Commons came is that it is absolutely necessary, before any conclusion can be reached in a matter of this kind, that the issue should be narrowed, and the only people who can narrow the issue, as it appears to them, are your Lordships. That is the reason why the Bill was returned as a whole to your Lordships. It was the mainspring of the Government's desire all through to pass the Bill in a reasonable form, and I think surely it is clear that the arrangement from the very fact which the noble Marquess brought out on the word of some laborious person, namely, that my own Amendments, returned, with just the same want of ceremony, if want of ceremony there is, formed rather more than 50 per cent. of the total Amendments to the Bill.
  As regards the form of the message, I can only say that if this House think that the message was too curt in form, the Government most sincerely regret it. There have been very long messages sent from one House to the other in the past; none, I think, of very recent years; they all date from a more ceremonious, and also, I think, a more long-winded age

  931
  than the present. The noble Marquess said that there was no precedent for so short a message. I think he will find if he looks to 1878, when a Conservative Government was in power, that the House of Commons insisted on its disagreement with the Amendments of noble Lords on the Poor Law (Amendment) Act of that year without giving any reason whatever. Our message may be curt and incomplete, but still that precedent does exist for a Bill being returned to the House without any reason at all being given.
  I have no hesitation in saying, and in saying quite seriously, that if His Majesty's Government had supposed that it was due to this House to return a more elaborate and formal message they would have certainly done so. Whatever may be said of his Majesty's Ministers in another place, it cannot be denied that many of them possess a natural and highly-cultivated literary sense; and no doubt they would have been proud to devote some of their literary skill to the composing of a message couched in terms more satisfactory to your Lordships than the present one. We are anxious seriously to maintain the traditions of courtesy which we all agree ought to govern all transactions between the one House and the other. The Bill has thus been returned, not in a spirit of insult, but simply because it was thought more fitting to remit it in this way than to reject it; and we did so confident in the belief that the majority in both Houses desire to see this Bill passed. I am well aware that there are some in this House who do not even wish to see it pass in the form in which it went back to the other House, like those who followed the noble Duke opposite into the lobby on the Third Reading. I am also well aware that at the other end of the scale, among some valued supporters of ours, there are people who think that the Bill as it came up to your Lordships went too far in the direction of encouraging denominational schools. But I do believe that this House and the other House as a whole would echo the desire of the noble Marquess that if, without compromising our principles, it is possible to arrive at an arrangement, such an arrangement we ought to arrive at.
  932
  The noble Marquess has moved an Amendment to the Motion on the Paper. Its terms are new to us on this side of the House, and consequently I have a certain amount of difficulty in knowing what course would be most likely to meet the views of the majority of your Lordships. I gather that the noble Marquess is rather disposed to think it might be desirable to adjourn the debate with a view to enabling us to tell the House rather more than what my right hon. friend was able to tell the House of Commons with regard to the character of the Amendments which we might possibly be able to accept. In this matter I am very much in the hands of the House, but I do not know whether an adjournment would enable me to state any more than, I may be able to state to the House at this moment. Consequently, in these circumstances, though I think it is exceedingly possible that it might be advisable that your Lordships should agree to adjourn before proceeding to the actual consideration of the Amendments, I propose to say a few words on the subject of the Amendments themselves.
  I have said that it is absolutely necessary to narrow the issue before we could arrive at any kind of conclusion, and the question is—"Can we take this matter in hand and reduce our points of difference to the smallest possible number?" Now, I think it should be made clear at once that we are not prepared to sacrifice the main principles of the Bill or in any way to alter its framework. It is also to be made clear that in anything I have to say it is surely obvious that I cannot pledge the majority of the House of Commons to take the same view of a particular matter which the Government do. All I can do is to state certain modifications dealing with the more important points of the Bill which, in the view of His Majesty's Government, might be agreed upon in existing circumstances in consideration of the Bill's passing, and which, accordingly, we should be prepared to recommend in consideration of the passing of the Bill.
  We have been subjected, and our Bill has been subjected, to a great deal of criticism, but there is one class of criticism which I confess I myself have always

  933
  carefully regarded and have always endeavoured to treat with respect. It is the criticism which does not seek to alter the actual structure of the Bill, but which seeks to show that in some respects the facilities which we have proposed to offer in the Bill cannot be taken full advantage of by those for whom they are intended, owing to the existence of other restrictive provisions in the measure. If noble Lords opposite are able to make out a fair case, either that our extreme anxiety to preserve the consciences of the children, or our anxiety to maintain the independence of the teacher, or our wish to safeguard the liberty of the local education authority, has made us in some respects too strict, I can assure noble Lords that we are not too proud to reconsider these points. But in doing so I once more safeguard myself from it being supposed that in any case we can agree to any modification which really affects the principle of the Bill.
  I deal first with the facilities under Clause 3. Those facilities in ordinary circumstances in schools of moderate size we think could quite well be given by an outside teacher, in many cases by the clergyman. We have all through felt bound to impress upon your Lordships that if the school teacher in a small country school was empowered to give this Clause 3 teaching, a great many people would say, and say with justice, that the school was so maintaining its denominational character that the transfer was not worth making at all, and the result would be that in those rural districts a number of children would receive Catechism teaching contrary to the desire of their parents. But we do admit that that argument does not apply in all cases.
  There are, no doubt, a considerable number of large schools, especially urban schools, where it would undoubtedly be exceedingly difficult for the Church of England, or any other religious body, to find volunteers who would be prepared to give the special denominational teaching. We desire not to mix up the head teacher in this matter. We think that the head teacher in the schools, now that these schools become in the main undenominational schools, should be a neutral person, but we do think that
  934
  it would be possible for assistant teachers, of their own accord and by agreement with the local authority, to give this teaching in other than single schools in rural parishes. If it could be shown—and upon that I am not certain, because it would demand the close investigation of figures—that, outside that limitation, there are a considerable number of really large schools at which it would be difficult to have volunteers to give this teaching, it might be possible to extend this privilege to schools outside such areas of really large size.
  There is one other point which markedly affects the schools under Clause 3. It is raised by the new clause inserted at the instance of the Duke of Devonshire. The noble Duke proposed that the taking over of all schools should be subject to an appeal to the Commission, who, if I remember aright, were to be the absolute arbiters in the matter, and were to proceed on common-sense lines as to whether a particular school ought or ought not to betaken over. We have felt compelled to draw a distinction between Clause 3 and Clause 4 schools in the matter of redundancy. We have always agreed that where it was a case of Clause 4 redundancy should not be taken into consideration. There might be many cases where schools which could be shown to be redundant ought to come under Clause 4. But in the case of Clause 3 schools we have taken a somewhat different line. At the same time, without admitting that there ought to be a general obligation to take over redundant schools I think it is quite possible that a half-way house might be reached in this matter. And if the noble Duke would agree, I should be entirely prepared, supposing your Lordships proposed to adjourn the debate, to consult and consider with him as to how that half-way house should be reached. I by no means despair of our arriving at a conclusion which would at any rate go a considerable way to satisfy the desires of the noble Duke and, I think, of the House as a whole, in this matter of not allowing a capricious refusal of schools by the local authority.
  I pass to Clause 4, on which I think my noble friend in another place was more explicit than on the matter to

  935
  which I have just been alluding. We certainly should not be prepared to agree to the Amendment of Lord Lansdowne. We are not prepared to admit single schools in rural areas to the provisions and privileges of Clause 4. We pointed out at the time that whatever the noble Marquess's Amendment might be designed to effect, its actual effect was that in many circumstances village schools in single school parishes might become Clause 4 schools. To that we could not agree, but short of that we should not be found rigid on the question of area. And we should also be prepared at any rate to meet the noble Marquess as far as we could by an Amendmet to make it clear that a very small number of children should not be able to prevent in any case those schools from obtaining the privileges of Clause 4.
  As to the numerical point—that of four-fifths or three-fourths, or two-thirds—we should be compelled to adhere to the principle that the proportion, whatever it is, must be the proportion of all the parents and not of those who vote. That we are obliged to do, because the contrary traverses what we think is one of the main principles of the Bill—namely, that these schools must be regarded as exceptional; and it is only by actual proof that there is a substantial majority that their claim can be shown. But we do admit that adherence to this principle undoubtedly makes it more difficult for the schools to receive those privileges, and we think that fact ought to be taken into account in estimating the number. Consequently we should certainly be prepared to accept, at any rate, a considerably lower number than our original proposal of four-fifths.
  Then we should agree to insist on the Amendment, of which I think I expressed general approval when it was moved by Lord Clifford, giving a prior right of entry to children of a particular denomination; and, although this is a matter which I know has caused heart-burning in influential quarters which we respect, we should, I think, be prepared to recommend that a parents' committee should have a definite consultative voice in the appointment of the teacher. That is as far as we can go, and I think noble Lords opposite will recognise that to attempt to
  936
  give anything like a veto in these circumstances would be too much to expect of us; because, of course, it would be a direct and very large infraction of our principle of no tests for teachers. We should also be prepared to recommend to the House that, where a new Clause 4 school is desired, there should be a right of appeal which was not stated in the original Bill.
  These are the principal points on which I have been trying, I hope with sufficient definiteness, to enlighten the House on the clauses about which the religious controversy has arisen. These concessions are—as I think your Lordships will agree when you have time to consider them—of a very substantial character indeed; and I must repeat that they must only be taken as forming part, so to speak, of an agreed Bill, and that, taken alone, we certainly should not be prepared of our own volition to include them in the measure. Many of those who support us will think that these concessions go much too far. I desire to show how anxious we are to arrive at a compromise on this matter, and I hope that noble Lords I opposite will also be prepared in a substantial degree to sink their own personal preferences and predilections, and see whether we cannot arrive on these lines at, I hope, speaking at any rate in a political sense, some final settlement of this question. If by adjourning your Lordships desire some time to consider the matter, it would seem a most reasonable demand. There is no need for me to reiterate the extreme inconvenience and, to some extent, the real national danger which would follow from the loss of the Bill.
  As regards our attitude towards the House, I can only say that, so far as I am concerned, all my political recollections are connected with this House. I never sat in the other House. I was a candidate, but I succeeded just before the general election in 1885. Consequently all my political past, such as it is, is bound up with your Lordships' House. During all the years I have been in the House, I have sat under five different Liberal leaders, and they have all, from Lord Granville down to my noble friend behind me, given the most ungrudging service

  937
  to the House of Lords, and I think it may be said of all of them that they have shown themselves just as careful and sensitive of the real dignity of the House as noble Lords who sit on the Benches opposite. I repeat that I am very anxious that this Bill should not be lost in a fog of misunderstanding, or be impaled on a point of punctilio. At any rate, let us consider the whole question on its merits. I believe that if we do give cool consideration now to the whole matter in the light of what I have been able to tell your Lordships, it is by no means impossible that we may be able to arrive at some successful conclusion without any real sacrifice of principle on either side.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of Ripon):My Lords, as no noble Lord has risen for some moments to continue the debate, I beg to move, in accordance with the suggestion of the noble Marquess opposite, that the debate be now adjourned; but if that is not agreeable to noble Lords opposite I will, of course, withdraw the Motion.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I understand the noble Marquess to move the adjournment of the debate.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Yes, until to-morrow.
  Moved, "That the debate be now adjourned until to-morrow."—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
  LORD STANMORE: Before the Motion for the adjournment is put by the Lord Chancellor I wish to ask whether His Majesty's Government include any concession with regard to the teaching of religion during the course of school hours.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We do not propose to attempt to restore our original Clause 6, which left the attendance voluntary.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I feel very strongly that it is an embarrassing thing for any of us to assent to the adjournment of the debate
  938
  on a mere verbal statement of proposals we ought to see in writing, and of which we do not know the exact terms and the exact scope. I take it, of course, that whatever is not conceded in the speech of my noble friend in charge of this Bill is not conceded in fact, and that therefore the whole range of the concessions is that set forth in the speech. I must say that I feel sure there are many outside this House who have supported the Government throughout this Bill who would not be prepared to support several of the concessions indicated unless those concessions are much more clearly explained and much more strictly limited. For instance, I cannot imagine agreeing to the adjournment sub silentio with the very vague and doubtful suggestion that some private arrangement should be talked over between the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and the noble Duke sitting on the cross benches as to what his been called a "half-way house" between the absolute right of the local authority to use its own judgment in taking over or not taking over schools and some coercive action to be applied to that local authority. I feel that there is no half-way house between the right of the local authority to have regard solely to efficiency of education and economy of the rates and the subjection of the local authority to any external power. Any half-way house which would give any manager of a school a title to claim from any external power the right to be taken over irrespective of what the local authority might consider the general interests of education would be a serious matter. It is all the more serious because it would impose in many cases a very heavy burden on the rates. I can quite understand that redundancy is a matter which does become material in the case of Clause 4 schools; but redundancy is by no means the only ground which would be a reasonable ground of rejection under Clause 3. Every town feels the importance of consolidating the schools, of dealing with them as they think fit, and of combining or rebuilding them if thought desirable. I take it that the willingness to adjourn shown on the other side of the House implies some sort of willingness to consider not unfavourably the compromise suggested; but I think it would be very

  939
  Unfortunate if we were to go for a compromise now without knowing the exact limitations of what we are proposing to give up. There are many things I would be willing to give up for peace and settlement, but I think there are one or two things which certainly will strain the loyalty of Liberals throughout the country even to breaking point.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord Tweedmouth):My Lords, I hope I may appeal to your Lordships not to follow the course adopted by my noble friend behind me. No one is more worthy to express opinions on this subject, which he has made so entirely his own. But I think the House as a whole must feel that we have arrived at a most critical moment when there really is a serious and probable chance of our coming to a sound arrangement. Therefore the least said at the present moment from any quarter of the House, the better it will be. I therefore earnestly hope that the representatives of the different sections of the House will refrain from speaking now, and endeavour to-morrow to come to such an arrangement as will enable us to carry the Bill through the House.
  On Question, debate adjourned until to-morrow.

  THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONSTITUTIONS.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the Letters Patent of the Transvaal; and to inquire of the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give information as to the proposed Constitution for the Orange River Colony. I trust that the noble Earl, in outlining the Letters Patent which are on the Table, will go into one or two matters with care and precision and give us a little more exact information. I allude, in particular, to the question of land settlement and to those clauses dealing with the annulling of the Chinese Labour Ordinance. Furthermore, I trust the noble Earl will give full and detailed information with regard to the new Constitution which His Majesty's Government propose to grant to the Orange River Colony. I think at this late hour it would be un-
  940
  becoming on my part to traverse again the ground which the noble Earl and other noble Lords in this House covered at the end of the earlier part of the session in dealing with the new Constitution for the Transvaal. Consequently I confine myself in the most formal manner to putting to the noble Duke the Question which stands in my name.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of Elgin): My Lords, I do not think I have very much new to say with regard to the Letters Patent as a whole. They faithfully carry out the forecast I made to your Lordships in July. That forecast was of necessity a summary, and the full details are now presented to your Lordships. I believe there is substantially no difference in principle between the one and the other. Moreover, the Constitution in its general form, so far, I mean, as it deals with laying down regulations for elections and the transaction of business, follows strictly the precedents that have been established; and it does not seem to me that it is necessary for me to go into a detailed examination of this matter, unless there is some point on which your Lordships specially desire information. I am anxious to insist upon the fact of there being precedents, because I think that has been overlooked in some of the criticisms which have been made. Take, for instance, the question of the reservation of Bills. It has always been the custom to prescribe certain classes of Bills which were to be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure. but it was usual at one time to give detailed instructions to the Governor in a separate document, and the instructions so given were treated as confidential. I think it was during the time of Mr. Chamberlain that it was first laid down that the instructions, should be published, and we have conformed to that ruling, with which I entirely agree.
  It would appear that some persons are of opinion that the first reservation in Clause 39, which refers to persons not of European birth, is an innovation. That is by no means the case. It is taken, I think, textually from the instructions given to the Governor of

  941
  Natal. It is to be found also in the instructions of the Governor of the Transvaal, of the Orange River Colony, and of the Governors of many other Crown Colonies. I think I cannot do better than draw attention to the words in which my predecessor justified its insertion in the Letters Patent of 1905. Mr. Lyttelton, in his despatch, used these words—
  "His Majesty's Government have been unable, having regard to the terms of peace signed in 1902, to make provision for the representation of any of His Majesty's coloured subjects. As a protection, however, of the interests of those sections of the population which are not directly represented in the Legislature, the Governor will, as now, be required by his instructions to reserve any Bill by which persons not of European birth or descent may be subjected to disabilities or restrictions to which persons of European birth are not also subjected."
  I should like also to refer your Lordships to Clause 51, in connection with the pledges on the question of natives which I gave in July. Though I expressly refrained from committing myself with regard to details, I did mention the reservation in some cases of sums of money for their benefit as a subject for consideration. But on looking further into the question we came to the conclusion that this provision had not always been successful in the cases in which it had been used. In West Australia, I think, it gave rise to prolonged conflict, and was at last repealed; in Natal it has not worked altogether satisfactorily. Therefore, it appeared to us that it was right and proper to reserve for Imperial consideration the approval of laws which imposed disabilities. But it is quite another thing to attempt anything in the way of administration from this country. It is to my mind impossible to refuse to the Government, to whom we are deliberately entrusting the administration of the Colony as a whole, our confidence in the control of the natives within their borders, and I have no inclination to do so. We retain the Governor as paramount chief, and it is through him we shall be able to exert such influence as is proper and necessary on behalf of the natives. I believe in this way we shall better secure adequate provision for them and for the wants of the native population as a whole than by attempting to insert in the Constitution
  942
  itself definite sums, the sufficiency of which it is an extremely difficult matter to estimate at such a time as this.
  Personally I regret extremely that the terms of peace have prevented there being any representation of natives in the Legislature. I have sat in a Council where there was native representation, and I am sure the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, who was my predecessor in that Council, would, if he were present, corroborate my view that we have gained much by their presence. I hope that at no distant time the Colonies themselves may be willing to fill up this blank. In the meantime we have made what under the circumstances must be scarcely more than a suggestion, but which we think might give some opportunity for natives being heard. It is a suggestion which is founded on the custom of South Africa, and the records of what can be done, for instance, in Basutoland, under the guidance of a sympathetic officer, by holding assemblies of this kind, make me hope that the new Government of the Transvaal may be willing and able to develop on these lines and to use the powers of this clause to set up institutions which may be useful. Swaziland illustrates the point I have been making. It is not strictly within the physical borders of the Transvaal. It can well be administered as a protectorate under the High Commissioner for some time to come, and the Order in Council which is circulated with the other Papers provides for this.
  The noble Duke asked me especially to refer to the clauses which deal with Chinese labour. I frankly admit that the third paragraph of Clause 39 and that Clause 50 are abnormal; but after the discussions which took place earlier in the year I have really nothing to say on the point, except that I consider them justifiable under the circumstances. The circumstances themselves have rendered them necessary, and they simply carry out declarations which were made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by myself in the two Houses of Parliament.
  I would, however, venture to demur to the proposition that we have wantonly interfered with contracts. Those who make that accusation must have rather

  943
  short memories. They forget that when we assumed office just a year ago we succeeded to the very troublesome legacy of 16,000 licences, and that in spite of repeated protests from large bodies of our supporters—protests with which we ourselves had much sympathy—we have adhered loyally to the obligations undertaken by our predecessors and we have respected those contracts. The result is that not only were 2,000 additional coolies landed in South Africa last month, but that the total number is now 53,000, as compared with 47,250, in spite of all wastage. I maintain in the same way that in these Letters Patent we go as far as we can to protect contracts. The contracts under the Ordinance are for three years, but there is the power of renewal. We respect them for three years, but we forbid renewals. I should like to point out how that works out. The new Transvaal Government may do one of two things. It may propose a new Ordinance, or it may not. If it does, and acts with reaonable promptitude, I do not think any serious question will arise about renewals. The first shipment that arrived in South Africa did not arrive till June, and, therefore, comparatively few will be affected during the first months of the new Government, while they are considering the Ordinance. If, on the contrary, it decides against the continuance of the system, the absence of renewals will greatly facilitate this operation, and also the withdrawal of the coolies. In that case the withdrawal will be carried out by a gradual process. A gradual process is beyond doubt the one which would be to the advantage of those concerned in the mines, in their endeavour to supply a different form of labour. When this question was last before the House I stated that I felt more and more that this system as a permanency was impossible, and so far as I personally am concerned, I adhere to that opinion.
  Then the noble Duke has asked me to say something about land settlement. I was sorry on the last occasion when this subject was under discussion not to have been able to give an answer more satisfactory to noble Lords interested in this question. It had never seemed to me to be possible to continue a system of land settlement on anything like the scale or
  944
  for the purposes of the scheme initiated by Lord Milner, except by consent. However, we did our best to get the consents to the larger scheme which was foreshadowed in speeches made in July, especially in that of my hon. friend who represents the Colonial Office in the House of Commons. But the inquiries made by the High Commissioner proved to demonstration that practically in no quarter could we rely upon a cordial acceptance of a scheme of that character. Therefore we had no alternative but to fall back upon some more modest proposal.
  What we desire to secure is that time may be given to the new Government to form a fair estimate of the situation. My own view is that it is so important to develop the agriculture of the Colonies that I find it difficult to entertain any doubt that the new Government, when it realises, as it is bound to do, that settlers of some kind would be a valuable addition to the strength of the Colony, will not only wish to retain those there already, but will desire to increase their numbers. But, of course, the terms and conditions upon which any scheme of that kind can be carried out must be for the determination of the Government of the day. It has been so left in the Letters Patent. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that we have added a proviso which would enable the duties of the Land Board to be transferred by agreement to the Government at any time during the five years during which the Land Board is called into existence. There is no compulsion. The Land Board will exist unless agreement is come to. If agreement should be come to it would be highly satisfactory, because it would mean that a good understanding had been arrived at between the settlers and the Government, which, I imagine, is the object of noble Lords opposite, as certainly as it is my own.
  As to the general provisions of the Letters Patent to the Transvaal, I do not think there is much that I need trouble your Lordships with in detail on this occasion. I wish rather to deal now with the second part of the noble Duke's notice by giving information with regard to the Orange River Colony. I personally am glad that this time has arrived. I admit no blame or delay in the matter. It has

  945
  always been our position that the Transvaal must be dealt with first, but all the same I, for one, had a feeling that the history of the Orange River Colony justified their claims upon our attention. I should like to quote from a speech not by any member of His Majesty's Government on that subject—
  "We do not propose that the Constitution of the Orange River Colony should necessarily be the same as the Constitution of the Transvaal Colony, either at starting or in the immediate future. It will be dealt with upon its own merits and dealt with separately, and we think it possible, from the circumstances with which everyone is familiar, that an earlier beginning to greater political liberty may be made in the Orange River Colony than in the Transvaal. That is due to the fact that the Government of the Orange River Colony, previous to the war, was a very good Government, and consequently, speaking generally, we shall find there probably the means of creating a satisfactory administration more quickly than we can do in the case of the Transvaal."
  As I said, that is not from a speech by any member of the present Government. They are the words of Mr Chamberlain.
  I need not dwell upon the difference in the situation of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony. In the Transvaal we have not only racial division but industrial and commercial interests which are varied and more or less equally balanced, and the chances of a political contest must remain doubtful. In the Orange River Colony, on the other hand, there is only one interest, the agricultural, and only one race, the Dutch, and the only thing doubtful in the election would, I suppose, be the size of the minority. It is not surprising under these circumstances that there should have been some feeling in favour of the restoration in some form or manner of the previous Government. There was this fatal objection to that—by no manner of means could it be made to secure the settled characteristic of responsible Government, i.e., the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament. We must give responsible Government, not only or principally because we have so promised, but because unless we do so we raise up once more the serious obstacle to the ultimate federation of the South African Colonies.
  The best way in which I can state the nature of the proposals we make is to read to the House the telegram
  946
  which I have to-day despatched to the High Commissioner. It is as, follows—
  "His Majesty's Government have throughout been anxious that no unnecessary delay should take place in the accomplishment of the declared purpose of His Majesty to confer responsible government upon the Orange River Colony; and they are now able to announce that the main bases and provisions of the Constitution as granted to the Transvaal shall equally apply in the case of the older sister colony, and they will, therefore, advise. His Majesty to issue Letters Patent for the Orange River Colony following in its substantial features the Transvaal Letters Patent of the 6th inst. Representation will be on voters' basis coupled with manhood suffrage and a residential qualification of six months. The magisterial districts will be retained with their existing boundaries for electoral purposes, and there will be separate representation of towns. The Legislative Assembly will consist of thirty-eight members, comprising twenty-seven district members and eleven town members."
  I have a list of the separate districts. I do not know whether noble Lords desire me to read it.
  LORD LOVAT: May we have the towns?
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: I will give the constituencies and the towns—
  "List of constituencies:—Bloemfontein, Kroonstad, Rouxville, and Winburg, two members each; Bethlehem, Bethulie, Boshof, Edenburg, Ficksburg, Frankfort, Harrismith, Heilbron, Hoopstad, Ladybrand, Lindley, Philippolis, Senekal, Smithfield, Thaba 'Nchu, Vrede, Vredefort, and Wepener, one member each; Fauresmith and Jacobsdal (together), one. Towns:—Bloemfontein, five members; Harrismith, Kroonstad, one each; Bethlehem, Fouriesburg, and Ficksburg (together), one; Jagersfontein and Koffyfontein together), one; Parys, Vredefort, and Heilbron (together), one; Ladybrand and Thaba 'Nchu (together), one. The allocation of seats has been made on the results of the census of 1904, except that five members are allotted to Bloemfontein town to allow for an increase of population. The principle followed is similar to that laid down in the case of the Transvaal in Schedule 3 of the Letters Patent. Provision will be made for automatic redistribution. The Legislative Council will consist of eleven members, and will be constituted in the first instance by nomination as in the case of the Transvaal. The provisions with respect to the Intercolonial Council and land settlement and reservation of laws on certain subjects will be similar to those in the Transvaal Letters Patent."
  As there was not in the Orange River Colony a district which marked itself out, as the Witwatersrand did, as an urban district, it has been necessary

  947
  to make provision for the separate representation of towns in the manner prescribed in the telegram I have quoted—that is, in part, by grouping towns together to make the necessary constituency. When noble Lords compare this telegram with the text of the Letters Patent they will no doubt be able to fill up the particulars readily. But of course the actual drafting of the Letters Patent will be proceeded with without delay on the lines I have now laid down. It will be remembered, however, that in the case of the Transvaal, certain steps had been taken already before we assumed office to provide for a voters' list under the Constitution of 1905. In the Orange River Colony everything has still to be done; but I can undertake to say that no time will be lost; and I hope that by the autumn of next year both Colonies will be fully equipped. I have repudiated already the charges of delay. As a matter of fact, when it was decided to revoke the Letters Patent of 1905, it was seen that some delay was necessary and that the election could not take place till months later. But we publicly announced that; and I might mention one incident that occurred at the time of the revocation of the Letters Patent. I had an interview in the spring with an important official from the Transvaal, and he said—
  "I suppose that you must now be intending to have two more sessions of the present Council, for it would be quite impossible for you to get things ready sooner."
  I replied—
  "That is not my estimate. I hope all will be ready in December,"
  and I have had the pleasure of sending my friend a copy of the Letters Patent. I do not take the credit to myself. If I may claim any credit, I should like to claim it for the Committee who went to South Africa and from whom we got valuable council; for the Governor and the Lieutenant-Governor, who have always been ready ungrudgingly to give his every information; and, above all, for the gentlemen who have unsparingly devoted time and thought to the preparation of this extremely important and Complicated document. In conclusion, I feel that the responsibility of His Majesty's Government in for-
  948
  mulating such a settlement as this has been very great; I feel my responsibility as representing His Majesty's Government to-day is very great. But there is one fact which, I think, offers us some encouragement, and that is that, since these proposals were first made public in July, there has been a general willingness to acknowledge that at any rate an earnest effort has been made to deal in a fair and equitable manner with the different sides of this difficult and complicated question. I venture to assure the House that in this the country has done us no more than justice; and it is in the hope that the House will not refuse to endorse that judgment that I now leave the matter in your Lordships' hands.
  *LORD COURTNEY of PENWITH: My Lords, I do not wish to go at any great length into the discussion of the Constitution of the Transvaal, upon which I had something to say on a previous occasion. But there are two or three questions which I should like to put, with a view to eliciting certain information. The working of this Constitution will, as I believe, depend very largely upon the constitution of the Legislative Council. If the Legislative Council is fairly composed, then, I think, the Parliamentary institutions will work with fair smoothness, and the Transvaal Government may look forward to the future with some degree of confidence. How is the Council to be composed? According to the Letters Patent, the members of the Council are to be summoned by the Governor. I take it that that is the phrase which was inevitable as a matter of form; but I do not suppose (indeed, I think the contrary has been said elsewhere on another occasion) that the members of the Council are absolutely to be selected by the Governor, Lord Selborne. They would be agreed upon, no doubt, after consideration of the advice and recommendations received by Lord Selborne, but would not be exclusively selected by his authority, and though he summoned them to the Council, they would be summoned by him under the authority, with reference to the persons summoned, of the Government at home. I have no doubt that Lord Selborne would choose

  949
  the fifteen members of this Council with the best wish to form a Council which should work fairly with Parliament in the future, but I confess that I do not think the selection of Lord Selborne would give great confidence to the people of the Transvaal if it was supposed that he had the absolute selection of the fifteen members. I confess, for my own part, greatly as I respect the character of Lord Selborne—as indeed all must who have had any degree of intimacy with him—I do not consider that he is the best person to select, on his absolute authority, the members of the Council which is to form such an important part of the future Parliament of the Transvaal. Therefore I should like to have confirmed what was said by the Under-Secretary, I think, on a former occasion—that the members of the Council, although summoned by the Governor on the spot, are to be named, and selected, and approved by the authority of the Government at home.
  There is a singular provision with respect to this Legislative Council which perhaps has not attracted the attention of your Lordships. The Parliament which is to be set on foot—the Legislative Assembly and nominated Council—will have the power of suggesting the mode of, and framing the scheme for, providing the elected Council of the future. The nominated Council will run five years. At the end of four years, Parliament is invited to frame a mode of electing members of the Council for the future, so that we may look forward to an elected Councilto succeed the nominated Council in the future Parliament of the Transvaal. But in the event of no such mode being agreed upon at the end of four years—in the event of a failure to provide means of electing an elected Council in the future—there is a provision that the present nominated Council shall be succeeded by another nominated Council, and that that second nominated Council is to be nominated on the spot by the Governor in Council. Now, nomination by the Governor in Council is a very remarkable way of creating a second Council. It would be very convenient, no doubt, to the incoming Ministry after a new election to recommend how the Second Chamber should be constituted. It would be very agreeable, and it would
  950
  facilitate the transaction of business in this country of ours, if the Second Chamber were nominated on the authority, recommendation, or advice of Ministers of the Crown, by the selection of the Crown at the commencement of every Parliament. Such a state of things would doubtless produce harmony between the two Chambers; but I do not suppose that that is really a serious and valuable contribution to the question of this country's constitution in the future, and I imagine that your Lordships would regard such a proposal with some surprise. But that, as I understand it, is the way in which the Council of the Transvaal is to be supplied in the future in case of a failure on the part of the new Parliament of the Transvaal to devise some means of electing the Council.
  There is another point upon which I should not have spoken at all but for the language of the noble Earl just now in reference to Chinese labour. He spoke of the power of the new Legislature of the Transvaal to pass the new Labour Ordinance, and he seemed to throw it on the unrestricted discretion of the new Legislature of the Transvaal to frame that new Labour Ordinance.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN: No.
  *LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: The language which the noble Earl used went, I think, to that length. He said that supposing they did nothing, then such and such things would happen; but supposing they passed a new Labour Ordinance, then the coolies there might remain under that new Labour Ordinance. But I wish to have it emphasised—as I now take it to be emphasised by the noble Earl—that any new Labour Ordinance devised by the new Legislature will be expressly reserved for the sanction of the Government at home, and will not be regarded as a matter of course to be accepted and approved by the Government on the spot. It will have to be a Labour Ordinance differing radically from that at present in existence, if, as I conceive, it is to receive any degree of approbation in this country.
  Two or three questions have occurred to me about the land settlement clause; but I am not sure that it is discreet

  951
  on my part to ask them, although it is merely for information that I wish to have some obscurities of the Ordinance elucidated. The three members of the Board of Land Settlement are to be nominated by the Governor, and to hold office during pleasure. Will they, then, be personally removable by the advice of his Ministers under the new régime which you are going to set up? They hold office during pleasure, being nominated by the Governor. How, office holders during pleasure would be undoubtedly capable of being displaced, and constitutionally would have to be displaced, if the advisers of the Crown recommended that such persons should be removed from office. Would the members of this Board be removed on the recommendation of the new Ministers under the Parliamentary system which we are now establishing if they recommended the Government so to do? Also, the Governor is to declare what salaries these Commissioners should have; but I have not been able to ascertain out of what fund these salaries are to be paid. That is a question which must have a very important bearing on the tenure of their office, apart from the question of their removability, to which I have already referred. I do not see myself how that fund is to be provided for. It is possible that the noble Duke opposite has some information of that kind. The £58,000 to which he referred, and which is entirely unknown to me, may cover some provision in the future which is supposed to be extended towards the salaries, but I really do not know anything about it, and I do not see what provision is made for the payment of the salaries of the members of this Board.
  Lastly, the members of the Board are to receive the present balance of funds allotted for the purpose of settlement, and any further sums which, having the sanction of the Government at home, may be allotted for the purpose by the Inter-Colonial Council. But that Inter-Colonial Council, I observe, depends for its existence on the acquiescence in future of the Government of the Transvaal, and of the Government of the Orange River Colony, each of which would bring the Inter-Colonial Council to an end; so that I have not very much anxiety
  952
  about the power of the Inter-Colonial Council on that point.
  I may perhaps be allowed to make one observation in conclusion, by way of qualification of what has been said by the noble Earl. He has told us that it may well happen that in view of the agricultural capabilities of the Transvaal and of the desirability of adding to the agricultural population, the new Government of the Transvaal may promote a system of land settlement. I should be very much surprised if it did, and I confess that the agricultural outlook of the Transvaal is not, in my estimate, of that inviting character which the noble Earl described. But if any land settlement is carried out such as has been carried out, for instance, in several of the Australian Colonies at different times in their history, and such as has been carried out more recently in New Zealand, it will be, I take it, a land settlement which will not be for the purpose of promoting any political object whatever; it will be a settlement which will be in the best interests of the settlers, be they English or be they Dutch—a settlementwhich will provide good agricultural workers for all the agricultural land which may be suitable for cultivation. I do not think myself that the history of South Africa in the past or the condition of South Africa at present is at all inviting to any agricultural population. If I had a friend who was intending to carry on any agricultural pursuit, the Transvaal is about the last place to which I should recommend him to go. I have no great anxiety about it; but I only wish to suggest that, although the Government of the future will have full power to promote—and if it chooses can promote—any settlement it pleases, it can scarcely be of the same character as that of the land settlement promoted under the auspices of the noble Viscount on a former occasion, which was actuated not so much by the desire to promote the best interests of agriculture as by the desire to promote certain political action within the area of the Transvaal.
  *LORD HARRIS: Unfortunately I was not in the House when the noble Earl,

  953
  Lord Elgin, made his statement upon that portion of the Letters Patent which refers to Chinese Labour. Your Lordships have always been very indulgent whenever I have addressed you on this subject, and I hope I may offer a few more remarks. Of course the dispute is over now. The Government has decided what shall be done, and as regards the arguments for or against what the Transvaal found it necessary to do, I have nothing more to say. We have made our fight, and we have been defeated. But I should like your Lordships to understand what I think will be the effect of the Chinese Labour Clauses (if I may designate them by that term) if the objects of the Government, as I understand them, take effect. I am not going to indulge in excursions into the realms of prophecy as to what is certain to happen; I only propose to suggest to your Lordships what may happen.
  As I understand it, from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Courtney, the intention of the Government is that the Chinese labourers shall complete their existing contracts, and that unless some law is passed affecting their re-engagement, the coolies will leave South Africa at the end of their present engagements. As the noble Lord on the back benches pointed out, any law of the Transvaal upon that subject will, I suppose, have to go through the same procedure that every colonial law has to do—it will require the assent of His Majesty. And I imagine that if the present Government are then in office, and are true to their profession, they will take objection to any law which does not provide that the Chinese shall return to their own country at the end of their engagement. I think it is extremely unlikely that the Transvaal will consent to a law which allows the Chinese to settle in the country. On the other hand, His Majesty's Government was, I understand, faced by the fact that a Chinaman is willing to return to his own country at the end of his contract. That is held by His Majesty's Government to be too servile a condition, and one to which they cannot assent. So that there seems to me to be the gravest probability of a difference of opinion upon that point. If that
  954
  be so, and if the Transvaal are unable to pass such a law as His Majesty's Government will advise His Majesty to assent to, then it seems to me that the effect of the Letters Patent must be this—that by April, 1908, that is to say, some sixteen months from now, as many as 40,000 Chinese, or very nearly that number, will have returned, or will be about to return. That, I should judge from all that has been said by His Majesty's Government and by their followers, is the object at which they aim. Whether that be so or not, I think that they ought to realise that the effect of such repatriation must be the paralysation of the most important industry in South Africa. There have been a great many misleading statements made on the subject of the supply of unskilled labour in South Africa.
  There have been two Commissions, if not three, which have reported on the subject, and the two important ones have reported to the same effect—that owing to the hereditary pursuits of the Kaffir, there is an insufficiency of supply of manual labour in that country. The Kaffir is not a labourer by preference or by training; he is a farmer. He has his piece of land, and he does not undertake labour very readily, and generally only under the urgency of a failure of crops, or because he wishes to improve his position. He leaves his family at home to get in the crops, and he goes and does a certain amount of work for a very limited time—very seldom for more than six months—in order to improve his position at home. The labour in the mines at those great depths is naturally less attractive, and, in addition, is more dangerous, than surface work, and therefore the competition, which is always severe, is further increased by that fact. Surface labour, or labour in a mine like the Premier Diamond Mine, which is practically akin to surface labour, is far more attractive than labour in the deep level gold mines of the Rand. Now, before the war it is estimated—because statistics were very indifferently kept, or never kept at all—that there were about 105,000 Kaffirs working on the mines, and it was known that a very fair proportion of that number were always inefficient,

  955
  owing to the ease with which drink was got in those days, and that they were incapacitated by excess. There are now working on the mines of the Transvaal some 85,000 Kaffirs, and it is beyond dispute that the number of Kaffirs now working in the Transvaal is considerably in excess of the number who were formerly working there. I do not mean to say that the population has decreased, but that the number of Kaffirs working in the Transvaal, employed by various employers besides the mines, is considerably in excess of what it was before the war. That points to the conclusion which I arrived at just now—that competition is always severe, and has been more severe since the war, owing to the demand from other employers of labour, such as municipal employment, Government employment, railway employment, and so on. There are now working on the mines of the Transvaal about 85,000 Kaffirs. If as many as 40,000 Chinese—it is very nearly that—36,000, actually, I think—leave the Transvaal permanently by the end of April, 1908, it is perfectly obvious that the industry will be to a very considerable extent paralysed. I hope sincerely that another inquiry will be held at the earliest possible date into the subject of labour supply. His Majesty's Government have ignored altogether the evidence that has been obtained by previous Commissions, and their reports. I personally, and others, last year, or rather early this year, implored the Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into that subject. They refused to do so. I do not say that they have refused to consider the reports of previous Commissions, but they have certainly ignored those reports, and they apparently now contemplate without apprehension the possible paralysis of this industry. The effect of it on the white population employed on the mines must be most serious; that is perfectly obvious, and I do not think that it is right that Answers should be given in another place which lead people to suppose that the employment of whites on the mines is a matter of indifference to the population there. A few weeks ago an Answer was allowed by the noble Earl (Lord Elgin) to be given in another place to this effect: it is reported that the Under-
  956
  Secretary stated on the 30th October, that—
  "1,000 white miners had been dismissed from the Rand during the past six months, and that during the same period the number of Chinese labourers had increased by 3,598. The people of the Witwatersrand were becoming fully alive to the significance of these facts, and would shortly be able to express their views openly through the medium of a representative assembly."
  I think anyone would infer from that reply that the Europeans employed in the mines had materially decreased, as compared with the number of Chinese employed; and I do not think it is a very wide assumption to suppose that people would assume that the European miners referred to were those employed in the mines. Well, now, that is not what had taken place. There had been a decrease of white miners—of European miners—on the mines generally, but that was due to this, that owing to the policy of His Majesty's Government, construction works on the developing mines had been put a stop to. The number of white miners in the mines had actually increased, but the number employed over the whole field had decreased owing to the fact that construction work on the developing mines had been put a stop to. That has been brought about by the apprehensions caused by His Majesty's Government. I have got the actual figures here from Government returns of the miners employed. The number of Europeans at work underground on the last day of September (and that was the month that was taken by the Colonial Office in their reply in another place), was 7,199, while the number in March, 1906, in the producing mines it was 6,999. I might interpolate here that a subsequent reply was given by the Colonial Office—again, I suppose, by the noble Earl's permission—which showed a lamentable ignorance of what was meant by a "producing mine" and a "developing mine," and I took the liberty of correcting that at an early opportunity in The Times. A producing mine, I need hardly say, is a crushing mine, where ore is being crushed for the production of gold, while a developing mine is a mine where the crushing of ore has not yet commenced. In March, 1906, the

  957
  number of Europeans at work underground was 6,999; in September, 7,199. So that there was an actual increase in those months. What had happened was that on the non-producing mines where the men were not necessarily engaged underground, but were probably engaged upon surface work, the numbers had dropped from 570 to 370, a decrease of 200, as compared with an increase of 600 on the producing mines. Those are Government figures up to the end of September, and they were available for the noble Earl if he had chosen to use them. Instead of doing so, he allowed a misleading statement of that kind to be made in Parliament, and naturally people who expect to get correct figures from Government are misled by such statements. I submit that there has been a good deal of misunderstanding in this country arising from mistatements somewhat similar to those.
  Besides this which I have pointed out to your Lordships as regards the possible result of the policy of His Majesty's Government, there is one other matter which I feel bound to refer to again, and that is the policy which His Majesty's Government have deliberately chosen to pursue as regards the Kaffirs from Portuguese territory. About 70 per cent. of the Kaffirs employed on the mines come from Portuguese territory. They are not British subjects; they are the subjects of His Majesty the King of Portugal, and, as I have explained several times to your Lordships, there has been always an arrangement with the mines on the Rand that they should be allowed to recruit in Portuguese East Africa. I believe it was a monopoly for the mines. The Portuguese authorities prefer that they should know where their Kaffirs go to, and, after the war, a co-operative system having been set up, the Portuguese authorities undoubtedly preferred that their Kaffirs should be engaged by the Native Labour Association, because they could lay hands upon them, and knew where they were; they could trace them if they wanted to, and they got rid of all the worst part of the recruiting scheme by doing away with the old touting system. I should like to show your Lordships what His Majesty's Government have been doing as regards this subject. They must
  958
  have known for months what their policy was. Their policy is to get rid of Chinese labour. They have said so over and over again—of course unless the Transvaal is prepared to accept what His Majesty's Government regard as a servile condition. That was the only excepttion, otherwise His Majesty's Government were determined that Chinese labour should be got rid of. They knew that—that has been their policy for months past—and yet they have entered into a confederacy with one of the magnates of the Rand. Your Lordships will know what epithets have been applied to those who are termed "the magnates of the Rand" by the followers of His Majesty's Government. They have been called by every opprobrious epithet that it is possible to apply to them, and yet His Majesty's Government have entered into a confederacy with one of these same magnates. For what purpose? In order to get him out of a difficulty, and that the Chinese should go back. They have endeavoured, so far unsuccessfully, to obtain preference—this from a Government which I should have thought at any rate would have been impartial—to obtain from the Portuguese Government preference for their confederate—the Robinson Group. I do not think that anyone can regard that as a very dignified attitude for his Majesty's Government, having regard to all they have said of the magnates of the Rand. Well, if we are black sheep, I do not suppose even the Robinson Group would claim to be a white sheep amongst the flock. If we are black, the Robinson Group is as black as any other, and yet His Majesty's Government have entered into this confederacy with the Robinson Group solely for the purpose (because it would have been possible for them to have acted impartially towards all the groups at the same time) of obtaining a benefit for this one group. And in order to secure that—there is no question about this; it is perfectly well known—they have been bringing every possible diplomatic weapon they can to bear upon the Ministers concerned. That, I submit, is hardly a dignified attitude for His Majesty's Government to take up in regard to the Portuguese Colony. What the effect of this diplomatic

  959
  pressure will be, we none of us know at present. What we do know is, that His Majesty's Government are still bringing this diplomatic pressure to bear against the wishes of the Colonial Government. The Colonial Government, who, one must assume, know their own business best, are most anxious that this competitive system which His Majesty's Government are trying to introduce should not be adopted. They know the system which the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association have conducted; they know the care that is taken as regards the medical examination of the Kaffirs when they come to the border; they know the care that is taken of them when they are on the way up to the Rand, and the medical care they receive when they arrive there. They are not allowed to be sent down the mines until the doctors pass them as fit for labour. What provision have His Majesty's Government made, I should like to know, that the Robinson Group shall take the same care of the Kaffirs when they are recruited for that body? I have not heard that any steps what ever have been taken through all this diplomatic pressure. I do not understand that any proviso has been put in by His Majesty's Government that precisely the same care shall be taken of the Kaffirs when they are recruited by the Robinson Group as has been taken of them by the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association.
  It is impossible to say what is going to be the result of all this dispute that has been going on now for so long, but I have no hesitation in saying that if the result of the clauses in the Letters Patent is what the noble Lord on the back benches wishes, and all the Chinamen are repatriated, it is inevitable that the industry must suffer severely. It may be disputed opposite, but I speak from the statements of everyone out there. If your Lordships ever read the Daily Telegraph, you will see what is the opinion that has been expressed by leaders of every political party out there. They are very small parties, but from every party out there, there is an expression of opinion that if the Chinese are repatriated in such numbers as I have suggested, the industry must suffer
  960
  most materially. That is all I have to say. It is impossible for us to dispute this question any longer. All I hold out now is a warning to His Majesty's Government that that is a possibility, and that if that possibility arises, they cannot expect to find, after six to twelve months, a satisfied Colony.
  LORD COLERIDGE: I must say a few words in answer to the noble Lord opposite. I did not intend to say anything, but as the noble Lord has made so many statements in this House, so many gloomy prophecies, I should wish to make a few remarks if only for the sake of cheering him and encouraging him not to take such a black view of the future of the Transvaal. The noble Lord asks the Government to appoint another Commission—
  *LORD HARRIS: The Colonial Government.
  LORD COLERIDGE: The noble Lord asks the Colonial Government to appoint another Commission in order to discover whether there is or is not a shortage of black labour in South Africa. We know the history of the last Commission upon that subject. We know the views that they entertained with regard to Chinese labour when they were appointed. We know the way in which they ruled out from the evidence all allusion to Chinese labour, and we know the Report which was the result of that Commission. And we now know what the birth and the career was of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association of which at that time we were ignorant. For we now know, what I stated in this House to be the fact, that the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association was an association in the nature of a monopoly for recruiting black labour, and an association which, by reason of that monopoly, was able to produce an artificial scarcity of black labour.
  *LORD HARRIS: No.
  LORD COLERIDGE: They could regulate to a nicety the number of black labourers they should import, and when the time came to make a good case

  961
  for Chinese labour, singularly enough the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association could not find enough black labour in order to supply the demand. Since then, we have known that when that difficulty had been removed, the difficulty they found in recruiting black labour was also removed, and I would encourage the noble Lord to hope—hope springs eternal in his breast, I am sure—that when the necessity arises for producing more black labour owing to the departure of a number of Chinese labourers to their native land, if he will only communicate with the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, they will have no difficulty in supplying the necessary recruits. But the noble Lord's great objection is this—that the monopoly is breaking down, and that the Government, seeing the disadvantage to the Transvaal, and the disadvantage to everybody concerned, of the power of the Chamber of Mines to produce an artificial scarcity of black labour in that country, have been issuing permits to another group of rival mines which no doubt are very objectionable to the noble Lord.
  *LORD HARRIS: He is no rival; Mr. Robinson has been a member of the association the whole time.
  LORD COLERIDGE: Yes, but I undestand that Mr. Robinson has left now. Disliking the methods of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, he has left that association, and is now, being dissatisfied with the amount of labour that is produced under the monopoly restrictions, seeking to obtain native labour for himself. That makes the noble Lord very angry, and I have no doubt that as far as the monopoly is concerned, the granting of a licence to Mr. Robinson to recruit in Portuguese East Africa will have the effect of breaking down the monopoly hitherto maintained by the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, and in the breaking down of that monopoly I trace the anger of the noble Lord at the action of His Majesty's Government. So far as we poor people on this side of the ocean are concerned, we do not see any advantage in a monopoly for recruiting black labour in East Africa. No doubt
  962
  there were evils, I do not deny it, following in the train of miscellaneous and promiscuous recruiting, but under certain restrictions we do not see in the least why every effort should not be made to obtain recruiting grounds for persons who are not members of the monopoly under the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association. I think myself the noble Lord may take a more cheerful view. He will find that as the necessity arises, the black men will be produced. I have no doubt that the noble Lord's great objection is to the breaking down of the monopoly of the association. He candidly confessed as much the other night by his spokesman in the other House, because he said it would tend to raise the wages of the blacks. If it raises the wages of the blacks, certainly for my part I should look on with perfect indifference.
  LORD LOVAT: You do not farm in South Africa.
  LORD COLERIDGE: I do not see why a monopoly should exist for the purpose of keeping down wages; therefore, I for my part would welcome the breakdown of this monopoly. I hope the noble Lord will forget his jealousy of the rival group of mines, and will aid the Robinson Group in obtaining sufficient blacks to take the place of the 40,000 Chinamen when they go home; and if he does that, I am sure that the noble Lord and his mines will not be any the worse for the abolition of the Chinese.
  LORD LOVAT: My Lords, in the first place I desire to apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting him in his interesting statement, but as I worked for a considerable period upon this subject, I was anxious to get certain information, and I had some anxiety lest the want of elasticity in the rules of the House should not allow the noble Lord to speak again.
  The Question which I should like to ask the noble Lord with regard to the settlers in South Africa is this. On page 11 of the Constitution the question of funds is dealt with. The Imperial Land Board which the noble Earl has created by the Constitution I am sure everyone will welcome, and it will do a great deal to remove the anxiety which has undoubtely been felt among the settlers in South

  963
  Africa. But if there is to be this Land Board, and if it is given no funds to carry out the work, it will be practically a bogus Board, and it will be no advantage to anyone. My anxiety about the funds has been considerable, because obviously if there are good times, and the return of that £2,500,000 is to take place, if times are good, and the money is paid regularly, there will be something with which to carry on the Board's work. But then if times are good, the settlers will not require assistance. On the other hand the times may not be good. There may be a series of droughty years, because it is generally acknowledged that drought is apt to run in a series of years in Australia and in other countries where drought frequently prevails, and both Boer and British agriculturists may then be in a very serious position. In that case no money will be coming back, and, therefore, as far as I can see, there will be no money with which to run the Board. Because, in the case put here, there are two conditions under which money can come to the Board. The first is that they can get a certain portion of the money which has already been appropriated, or rather I should say a certain part of the unexpended portion of the £2,500,000. What, exactly, is that sum? I believe practically the whole of that £2,500,000 is now expended.
  *THE EARL OF ELGIN: I am not sure about that.
  LORD LOVAT: I think the noble Earl will find that of that £2,500,000, £2,340,000 or so had been expended up to last July, and there has been a further grant of £50,000 this year to the Orange River Colony for special objects in connection with the war and one or two other points. That money has been already allocated, and is therefore useless as far as regards the present question. I should like to know how much of that £2,500,000 can be directly taken by the Board.
  Then there is a second purpose for which this money is given to the Board. As I have already said, given a bad year, they have no money to expend at all.
  964
  The next point you have to consider is in (c) of page 11 of the Constitution, which says—
  "Such further sums as may be approved by a Secretary of State out of the moneys hereafter appropriated to the Government by the said council for land purposes."
  This has got to be approved by the Council—that is to say, the Inter-Colonial Council. This taking of the half-million of money which remains for the Land Settlement Grant is to be by the approval of the Inter-Colonial Council. I humbly beg to offer the prophecy that there is very little chance of the Land Settlement Board seeing any of this £500,000, because the Inter-Colonial Council will be practically entirely composed of Boers, as your Lordships will see if you look at its composition. As I understand, it is to be composed—and I hope the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—of seven members from the Transvaal and eight from the Orange River Colony. Now in the Orange River Colony, to take that first, out of the electing places which the noble Lord mentioned in his statement only five Britishers can possibly be returned. I give the statement merely, I am afraid, on my own authority, but it has been given to me so often in the case of my numerous visits to South Africa that I assume it to be so. Under the distribution of elective seats you have five members in the new elective Chamber from the Orange River Colony. Therefore you may anticipate that there will be only a very small proportion of pro-British members—or, if you do not care for the term "pro-British," you will have, at all events, not many of English birth. In the remainder of the Legislative Council, which is made up of the eleven members from the Transvaal, you will no doubt, in your nominated Legislative Council, have a proportion who will have open minds, at all events, on the land settlement question, but a majority, or at all events a large proportion, of those also will be already pledged against land settlement. Therefore I think you may say that it is practically certain that in the Legislative Council there will be a very large majority who have already, being Boer leaders, expressed the attitude they are

  965
  going to take with regard to land settlement, and therefore, with regard to this £500,000 out of the £3,000,000 which has been voted by the British Government to the Colony for definite, specific purposes of land settlement, there is very little chance of seeing that £500,000 go to the purposes for which it was authorised. If you have got a Board, and if, as I think I have shown, there is very little chance of any money coming to that Board to enable it to administer its duties, is it not rather a farce to appoint a Board at all?
  I hope the noble Lord will be able to give me an answer under those two heads—first, as to what is the residue of the £2,500,000 already appropriated and, secondly, if he anticipates there is the least chance of these poor wretched settlers—these men who fought for us in the war—getting the remaining £500,000. I think it will be regarded very unfavourably in the country if this Board is simply an eye-wash, and of no value at all, and the Government will in that case suffer considerable loss of prestige. The noble Duke mentioned £58,000. I do not pretend to know the exact figure; I should have said it was rather less—perhaps about £45,000—which comes from the £2,225,000 to £2,500,000 already expended. But of this £45,000, or thereabouts, which is the annual income of the Board, already a great portion has been definitely allocated to certain business. You have first got the payment of the Board; you have got the whole of the development work which has been undertaken and which must go on; you have got the various dam schemes which are already begun, and others which must come forward; and you have got your Water Board. Does that leave much margin out of which to look after your settlers in the country? I say most distinctly it does not, and I again repeat that if this Board is not given enough money to look after these settlers the thing is a sham and a farce which I can scarcely believe for one moment the Government would set itself to establish.
  There is another question on the subjest of these settlers which I would humbly ask His Majesty's Government, and that is the question of their repre-
  966
  sentation. I pressed the question the other day, and I was told that they were being looked after by the Government. I think those were the words the noble Lord used. The only "looking after" that I can see which the noble Earl Lord Elgin has carried out with regard to the settlers is that their one hope of representation—that is to say, by entering the Legislative Council—is entirely knocked away, because in your Regulations for the Legislative Council you only admit men of over three years standing in the Colony. There are very few Colonists there—the colonising work only began two years ago—and the only place where these poor wretched settlers could possibly have a chance of making their voice heard is cut away from under them. I can hardly believe that that was done on purpose to keep out men who had shown their loyalty to the country, but not one single man can be returned, for any electoral body, nor can they be returned for any legislative body, by this three years rule. I think the demand of these settlers is a very moderate one, and although the noble Lord appears pleased with what he has done for their benefit, I, speaking as one who knows a great many of them, and who has heard their views on the subject of the way in which they are likely to be treated by the Boers, think their condition is indeed dangerous.
  There was one statement to which I should like to take exception, namely, the statement by Lord Elgin that the Government had carried out the principles which were contemplated last July. I venture to offer the opinion that the Government have traversed a great many of the principles which they put forth last July. One of their first principles—I do not confine myself necessarily to the July statement, but I refer to the March and the July statements in another place—was that the principle of land settlement was to be given. Another great principle put forward was that the Chinese were going to be taken away from the Rand. I would prophesy that three years may go by and we shall see uncommonly few Chinese leave that country. But to return to the question of land settlement for a moment (I will deal with the question of the

  967
  Chinese afterwards), in July and in August the question was taken up of the possibility of your £4,000,000 scheme for placing men on the Rand. You say that scheme failed because it met with no approval. I suggest that the reason that it met with no approval was that the scheme itself was radically bad. It was not so much that it was a scheme which the land settlers objected to, but that the scheme put forward was an impossible one. You offered a bribe of, I think, £1,000,000 for compensation. You offered £500,000, or £250,000, for a light railway from Sanna's Post. There was a further £1,000,000 to be given for the Land Bank, and the residue was to go into land settlement. But who was this money going to? £2,000,000 of that money was going to the Board of Interest. There was no chance of getting the men who were going to find the money to vote that. If you had given them a plain issue on the land settlement question do you think you would have had the same answer? I very much doubt it. And again, from the Boer point of view, they thought they were going to be fobbed off with one final £1,000,000 to clear up the whole question. Now, my Lords, if any of you have ever travelled in South Africa, you will bear me out when I say that there is one question which always interests the Boer, and that is the question of the compensation. He will talk about it for hours, and he is determined that whatever else is done or left undone, the Government shall at all events give them the compensation. It is quite obvious, if you mention such a beggarly sum as £1,000,000 for the compensation, no Boer would ever look at such a scheme, and therefore that scheme was foredoomed to failure because the scheme itself was radically bad. You alienated the English on the one hand by giving them a sop, and you alienated the Boers on the other hand by not making that sop sufficiently large.
  On the question of the Chinamen, upon which Lord Coleridge has spoken so eloquently, I think there were one or two facts which were hardly taken into consideration when the question of legislation on this subject was being discussed. When we come to the end of the year, when it will be
  968
  necessary for the Transvaal Government to put forward some suggestions, I think you will find that in a Government in which the majorities will be very close, something of the nature of coalition and compromise must be come to, and that where there are such big sums to be dealt with—for compensation, for schools, for railway development, and so on—both Britons and Boers will be very chary of sacrificing, or lowering the money production of the country, and I think that as they are chary about lowering the one big industry they have got, you will find both Boers and Briton banded against any interference from the Home Government, and that if you postpone any action for the removal of the Chinese until a year after this Constitution has been in operation, the paper might just as well be torn up, as far as regards any good it is going to do in the direction of sending the Chinaman out of the country.
  There are two other points I should like to take up before I sit down. One is the question of miscellaneous recruiting to which Lord Coleridge referred. My Lords, I do trust that there will be no indiscriminate recruiting outside the organised recruiting which is at present carried on. I do not pretend to know about the mines, but I do take an interest in the country from the agricultural point of view, and agriculture there requires so many natives to look after it—so many natives for ploughing, so many natives for general improvements, and so on; and I hope you will not revert to those days n which individuals were wandering about the country trying to bribe your best boys to go off to the Rand. They are not likely to do good to anyone; they are not likely to do good to the Rand, because it will cost more to get natives in that way, and they are likely to do a great deal of harm to the farmers by taking good boys away from the work to which they are accustomed.
  There is a further question, on a matter brought up by Lord Courtney, and that is the question of the Legislative Council. I trust that the answer to the noble Lord will be that Lord Selborne will have the nomination of the nominated Legislative Council as

  969
  it appears in this book which I hold in my hand. Here we have a country the Transvaal, where, out of 92,000 electors, 58,000, according to the latest Return, appear to be British, and where only a minority are Boers; and yet by the gerrymandering of the Constitution, a result has been arrived at b which equality, if not superiority, has been given to the Boer interest. I think, at all events, the British interest should have a chance of being represented by having a nominated Council to control that majority. I think the surely enough has been done for to other side, and that, at all events, as far as the Legislative Council is concerned, the loyalists of South Africa should now have a chance.
  *LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I have only a few words to say, and owing to the lateness of the hour, I propose to mal my remarks even briefer than was m original intention. It is not by way criticism that I wish to say anything. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, right said, the time for criticism has passed, and we are face to face with an accomplished fact, and whatever our opinions may have been of the wisdom or unwisdom of the policy which His Majesty's Government have seen fit to adopt, we must all share the wish expressed in the Letters Patent, by the gracious authority of the Sovereign, that the Constitution which is now bestowed up the Transvaal will result in the peace and contentment of that Colony. This is matter in which everybody, whatever his opinions, must join in the wish that the policy of His Majesty's Government will be successful. The only point which I wish to allude is this. It is regard to Article 39, and in this connection I have to express the hope that His Majesty's Government will be as zealous and as determined in the exercise of the reserved powers in respect to legislation which they have taken in the matter of the disabilities of our Indian fellow-subjects in the Transvaal, and as they undoubtedly be in regard to the imposing of disabilities on British industries that Colony. I hold that there is no question of Imperial policy which is fraught with more important possibilities than that of the treatment of our
  970
  Indian fellow-subjects in the Colonies. I am fully aware of the immense difficulties of the question, and of the fact that hitherto no Government has been able to deal with them satisfactorily, but I feel certain that at least two members of His Majesty's Government—the noble Marquess who leads the House, and the noble Earl who presides over the Colonial Office—will have this great object at heart, to arrive at a solution of the question which will fulfil our honourable obligations to the people of India, and which, at the same time, will meet with the acceptance of our fellow-citizens in the Colonies. That is really all I wish to say. I have necessarily abbreviated my remarks, but I felt bound to say this much, because among the members of your Lordships' House who have in the past been responsible for the Government of India, I am the one who has most recently exercised that responsibility, and I felt, therefore, that it was a duty which I could not neglect to express this hope on behalf of our fellow-subjects in the great dependency of India.
  *THE EARL OF ELGIN: With the permission of the House, I will endeavour to answer some of the questions put to me. In reply to Lord Courtney, I am glad of the opportunity of saying that the intention with regard to the nomination of the Legislative Council is that though the nominations are made through the Governor they should be referred for the approval of His Majesty's Government. That statement is one which I have made before, and that is the method by which we propose to act. With regard to the second nomination of the Legislative Council, I suppose that the noble Lord has not misconstrued the wording of the section. If it did so happen that a fresh Legislative Council might have to be nominated instead of being elected it would be in the power of the Governor in Council, which means the Ministry of the day, to nominate that Council. The whole intention, however, of the clause is that the nominated Council should only endure for the first session, and thereafter it should be an elected Council as in the other colonies. The other point raised with regard to the nominations was on the land settlement clause, and I would

  971
  point out that in that clause the appointments are made expressly by the Governor and not by the Governor in Council. Therefore I imagine that the members of the Board would hold office during the Governor's pleasure.
  I also desire to say that with regard to the new Labour Ordinance I ought perhaps to have brought out that we of course entirely adhere to the provisions of the Letters Patent, by which any fresh ordinance that was to be provided by the new Government of the Transvaal would have to come home as a reserved Bill. I have said before in my speech that in my humble opinion the continuance of the system is impracticable, but that I hope does not mean that if the Transvaal Government was to bring forward an Ordinance and submit it for the approval of His Majesty's Government, and if I still had the honour of holding the office I now hold, I would not give it the most careful consideration which is due to all measures deliberately sent home by any of our responsible governing colonies. In reply to my noble friend, Lord Harris, I quite expected that he would take the view of the probable results of this legislation which he has expressed, and I am not by any means inclined to deny that there are difficulties in the situation. But, my Lords, I have never been able to see that it was possible for any Government to overlook the duties which they deliberately thought they owed to the cause of morality and freedom, and it is on those grounds that we on this side of the House have taken exception to the system at present in force in the Transvaal, and it is for these reasons that we have inserted in the Letters Patent the provisions to which the noble Lord takes exception. With regard to the other matters to which he referred in his speech, I venture to think that they do not directly arise out of the provisions of the Letters Patent themselves. I have spoken more than once in answer to the noble Lord with regard to recruiting in Portuguese East Africa, and I adhere to what I have said before. I do not accept the proposition that we have embarked in this matter in any sense as confederates, but we have endeavoured to hold the scales evenly, and we shall persist in the policy which we have adopted.
  972
  In reply to Lord Lovat I desire to say that we certainly hoped and intended that sufficient funds would be available to carry on the work of the Imperial Board effectively during the five years in which it was to exist. I was not prepared for the question as to the exact balance that remained of money appropriated out of the loan, but whatever balance does remain is to be transferred to them. With regard to the further sums that may be appropriated, after some consideration we agreed that these should be made available for the purposes of the Board under the conditions described in Sub-section (c). The noble Lord objects to these conditions not so much because they would not provide adequately for the purpose, but because he distrusts the agents who may have to deal with the matter in the Inter-Colonial Council. All I can say in that matter is that I cannot agree with him. I cannot admit that the members of the Inter-Colonial Council will not act fairly and honourably in the discharge of their duties, whether they belong to the British or to the Dutch race; I believe that they may be relied upon. The noble Lord seems to me very much to minimise the amount of funds which ought to come into the possession of the Board from the repayment of advances. I do not know whether he overlooks the fact that no new settlers of any kind are to be put upon the land. Under these circumstances any repayments, and some of the settlers must be solvent, will come into the funds of the Board for the purposes of these five years. Remembering, therefore, that the only expenditure so far as I know will be upon improvements on the holdings, such as the water supply, of which the noble Lord spoke, and so on, I should have imagined that the funds would certainly have been sufficient. I will, however, inquire if there is any doubt upon the matter, but as far as my information goes that is the intention with which we undertook this matter and framed this clause, and I should be very much surprised to hear that we had not sufficiently supplied the Board with funds.
  The Constitution of the Orange River Colony, like that of the Transvaal, will be based upon a general

  973
  voters' list, and British settlers will have their votes like any other persons in the colony, but they cannot have more. With regard to the Legislative Council it might be possible that some representation might be given to them, but that I cannot speak of with any certainty at the present time. I do not see on what grounds there can be a claim for a permanent and separate representation for any particular section of His Majesty's subjects. I do not think I can follow the noble Lord into his statement that the provisions of the Letters Patent are not in accordance with statements made in July. In my opinion I think they are in exact accordance with those statements. I have said so before, and I repeat it now. I will not follow him into his criticisms of the scheme which we submitted to those who are qualified to speak on the subject through the High Commissioner. All I can say is that I am sure from the replies which we received that even on land settlement alone there was not that great concurrence of opinion which the noble Lord believed.
  I do not think I need assure my noble friend opposite, who spoke of Indian disabilities, that he only correctly interpreted my view when he said I should be only too willing to do all I could to remove those disabilities. I am sure he also feels with me that this is a matter in which we have to keep control over our sentiments, because there are sentiments in other directions, and other of His Majesty's subjects are concerned. Therefore we are obliged to deal with this matter with great circumspection.

  BURIALS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order).

  Clause 1:—
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 7, after the word 'a' to insert the words 'burial ground or."—(Earl Carrington.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD WARDALEmoved an Amendment dealing with the right of a local
  974
  authority to create a burial ground within 100 yards of a dwelling house. Under the recent decisions difficulties arose in cases of land already appropriated for the purpose of a burial ground, upon which houses had been partially erected. It was consequently desirable to make the law perfectly clear, and he begged leave to propose the Amendment of which he had given notice.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word 'erected to insert the words 'or is or was erected or completed."—(Lord Weardale.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  Clause 2:—
  THE EARL OF MEATHsaid he had intended to move the rejection of the clause. His objection to it was that it substituted "one hundred yards" for "two hundred yards" as the distance from a dwelling-house within which no part of a cemetery might be constructed without the consent of the owner, lessee, and occupier of the house. The object of the clause was apparently to equalise contradictory legislation; that was a very excellent purpose and one which he would have supported if it had been proposed to substitute 200 yards for 100. His contention was that the Bill if it became law would encourage local authorities to do what was exactly opposite to public opinion and scientific experience. The trend of public opinion within the last four years had been to get rid of cemeteries and burial grounds in towns and suburban districts, and he protested against the great experience of sanitary experts being ignored in this matter. His noble friend in charge of the Bill, with his usual courtesy, had told him that the Government had no desire or intention that the Bill should have any connection with Ireland, and consequently he would not press his Motion.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Bill reported with Amendments: Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having

  975
  been suspended), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  REMOVAL OF OFFENSIVE MATTER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended): Bill read 3a and passed.

  RECORDERS, STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES, AND CLERKS OF THE PEACE BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 14, at the end to add 'That the powers given by this Act shall be in addition to and not in abrogation of any similar power existing under sub-section 4 of Section 83 of the Local Government Act of 1888 or otherwise."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived: Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. having been suspended): Amendment reported: Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS BILL.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I ask the House to proceed only with the Second Reading of this Bill. I do not propose to proceed with the other stages, because the Treasury have a drafting Amendment to introduce in Committee.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a to-morrow: (The Lord Granard (E. Granard). (No. 248.)
  House Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Eight o'clock till to-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.